Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 114
Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence
Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence. Illustrations.
(a) The good faith of a sale by a client to an advocate is in question in a suit brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the advocate.
(b) The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the father.
Why this exists
This rule comes from a long-standing principle in Indian evidence law (originally Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now re-enacted as Section 114 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Ordinarily, whoever claims something must prove it. But courts recognised that in relationships of 'active confidence' — like lawyer-client, guardian-ward, doctor-patient, or a parent and a young, dependent child — one side has so much influence, trust, or control that the usual rule would be unfair. A person under such influence may not even realise they were shortchanged, or may lack the resources or courage to gather proof. So the law flips the burden onto the person holding power or trust, requiring them to affirmatively show the deal was fair, to protect vulnerable parties from exploitation.
How courts read it
Indian courts have long applied this principle (under the old Section 111) to relationships such as solicitor-client, trustee-beneficiary, spiritual guru-devotee, and parent-child, especially where one party is old, illiterate, or newly independent. Courts have held that 'active confidence' does not arise from every relationship of trust — it must be shown that one party genuinely relied on and was influenced by the other in that specific transaction. Once such a relationship is established, courts have consistently required the dominant party to prove absence of undue influence, adequacy of consideration, and full disclosure, rather than requiring the weaker party to prove they were cheated.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This rule applies to every relationship where people trust each other, like friends or spouses.
Fact: Courts have clarified it only applies to relationships of 'active confidence' — where one party has real influence or control over the other's decisions, such as lawyer-client, guardian-ward, or a father and a son who has just become independent. Ordinary trust between equals doesn't automatically trigger this rule. - Myth: The weaker party still has to show some proof that they were cheated before the burden shifts.
Fact: Once the relationship of active confidence and the transaction are shown, the burden shifts entirely to the dominant party to prove good faith — the weaker party doesn't need to first prove unfairness.